Nikon D7100 vs D7000

Now that it is officially announced, I am sure some of our readers would be interested in seeing how the new Nikon D7100 compares to its predecessor, the D7000. With an improved sensor, high-end autofocus system and other great features, looks like the D7100 will be one heck of a high-end DX camera. The D7000 is no slouch either, with an excellent sensor and great all around performance. Now it is even better. In this Nikon D7100 vs D7000 comparison, I will first go into specifications, then talk about specific features that differentiate the two cameras. Please keep in mind that this comparison is purely based on specifications. Further details, my impressions, ISO comparisons and other useful information will be provided in my upcoming Nikon D7100 Review later this year.

First, let’s go over the bare specifications:

Nikon D7100 vs D7000 Specification Comparison

Camera Feature

Nikon D7100

Nikon D7000

Sensor Resolution

24.1 Million

16.2 Million

Sensor Type

CMOS

CMOS

Sensor Size

23.5×15.6mm

23.6×15.6mm

Sensor Pixel Size

3.9µ

4.8µ

Low Pass Filter

No

Yes

Sensor Dust Reduction

Yes

Yes

Image Size

6,000 x 4,000

4,928 x 3,264

Image Processor

EXPEED 3

EXPEED 2

Viewfinder Type

Pentaprism

Pentaprism

Viewfinder Coverage

100%

100%

Built-in Flash

Yes, with flash commander mode

Yes, with flash commander mode

Storage Media

2x SD

2x SD

Continuous Shooting Speed

6 FPS, 7 FPS in 1.3x Crop Mode

6 FPS

Buffer Size (RAW, Lossless 14-bit)

6

10

Buffer Size (RAW, Compressed 12-bit)

9

15

Max Shutter Speed

1/8000 to 30 sec

1/8000 to 30 sec

Shutter Durability

150,000 cycles

150,000 cycles

Exposure Metering Sensor

2,016-pixel RGB sensor 3D Color Matrix Metering II

2,016-pixel RGB sensor 3D Color Matrix Metering II

Base ISO

ISO 100

ISO 100

Native ISO Sensitivity

ISO 100-6,400

ISO 100-6,400

Boosted ISO Sensitivity

ISO 12,800-25,600

ISO 12,800-25,600

Autofocus System

Advanced Multi-CAM 3500DX

Multi-CAM 4800DX

Focus Points

51, 15 cross-type

39, 9 cross-type

AF Detection

Up to f/8

Up to f/5.6

Video Capability

Yes

Yes

Video Output

MOV, Compressed

MOV, Compressed

Video Maximum Resolution

1920×1080 (1080p) @ 24p, 25p, 30p, 50i, 60i

1920×1080 (1080p) @ 24p

Audio Recording

Built-in microphone External stereo microphone (optional)

Built-in microphone External stereo microphone (optional)

LCD Size

3.2″ diagonal TFT-LCD

3.0″ diagonal TFT-LCD

LCD Resolution

1,228,800 dots dots

921,000 dots

HDR Support

Yes

No

Built-in GPS

No

No

Wi-Fi Functionality

Eye-Fi Compatible, WU-1a

Eye-Fi Compatible

Battery

EN-EL15 Lithium-ion Battery

EN-EL15 Lithium-ion Battery

Battery Life

950 shots (CIPA)

1050 shots (CIPA)

Battery Charger

MH-25 Quick Charger

MH-25 Quick Charger

Weather Sealed Body

Yes

Yes

USB Version

2.0

2.0

Weight (Body Only)

675g

690g

Dimensions

135.5 x 106.5 x 76mm

132 × 105 × 77mm

MSRP Price

$1,199 (as introduced)

$1,199 (as introduced)

While some of the features remained the same, there are some major differences between the two cameras. First, the sensors are completely different – the Nikon D7100 has a new high-resolution 24.1 MP sensor, while the Nikon D7000 has a 16.1 MP sensor. Due to the increased number of megapixels, the pixel size on the D7100 is also smaller, at 3.9µ (similar to the D3200). The processor on the D7100 is obviously of the new generation, EXPEED 3, versus EXPEED 2 on the D7000, which allows for higher throughput and image processing. While base continuous shooting speed is the same, the D7100 also allows shooting in 1.3x crop mode, so it can go up to 7 fps. Buffer size stayed the same, which is a little disappointing to be honest – the buffer on the D7100 will fill up after 9 shots (compressed 12-bit RAW), while the D7000 can handle 15 RAW images. So this is going to be a bummer for sports and wildlife photographers that like continuously shooting fast action.

The biggest difference between the two cameras is the autofocus system – the Nikon D7100 has the excellent Advanced Multi-CAM 3500DX autofocus system, which is basically a tweaked AF system from the Nikon D300s that can handle lenses up to f/8. The D7100 will have 51 focus points with 15 cross-type points, which is a big jump from the Multi-CAM 4800DX on the D7000 with 39 focus points (9 cross-type). This makes the D7100 much more suitable for tracking subjects, photographing in low-light environments and using teleconverters with telephoto lenses.

Video mode is also significantly enhanced. The D7000 allowed movies to be recorded in 1080p @ 24p, while the D7100 can go all the way to 60i. The LCD is now bigger and has more resolution – 1.2 million dots versus 921 thousand. Battery life has gotten a little shorter, but the battery type stayed the same, which is great news for the existing D7000/D600/D800/V1 owners that own multiple EN-EL15 batteries. The camera got a little lighter, but slightly bigger. The price stayed the same, at $1,199 for body-only version. There are a few other differences between the two cameras in terms of menu options, HDR mode, etc., but I won’t cover them in this article.

Now here comes the big question – is the Nikon D7100 worth upgrading to from the D7000? If added resolution and better autofocus systems are important, then yes. Otherwise, skip at least a generation, like I always recommend. If you own an entry-level DSLR like Nikon D3000/D3100/D3200/D5000/D5100, then it is definitely worth the upgrade in my opinion.

Related articles:

About Nasim Mansurov

Nasim Mansurov is a professional photographer based out of Denver, Colorado. He is the author and founder of Photography Life, along with a number of other online resources. Read more about Nasim here.

Reader Interactions

Comments

1) Pete

February 20, 2013 at 11:38 pm

Nasim, as an amateur looking to move on from a six-year-old D80 and strongly considering the D600, does the D7100 become a palatable option instead? Most shots are of the kids, with many sports-related or school-related events (often in low-light conditions). Or is there simply no comparison because any high-quality FX will beat a top-notch DX?

DX cannot compare to FX in image quality, no matter how you put it. For low-light performance, FX will always top DX. The move from the D80 to the D600 would be a significant one and it obviously has its negatives like buying more expensive/heavier FX lenses. If you want to stay with DX, then the move up to the D7100 is still pretty significant from the D80.

Thanks, Nasim and Adnan. I’m ready to make the move and definitely appreciate that it will be a big investment with FX lenses — but that’s where I want to head and take the hobby far more seriously. Many thanks!

“DX can not compare to FX in image quality”=> Surely this is true in laboratory or regarding DXO Mark Scores, but how relevant is it. My question: When you shoot the same scene with FX and DX, not low light, and compare then the two pictures in 100% crop, would an normal person spontaneously see the difference and judge FX picture as better? Or is this image quality difference more something you can point out with laboratory measurments?

Mark, DXO puts D700 and D7000 head to head in their scoring system but IQ of D700 is better if seen in 100% crop at ISO 6400. DXO does technical tests in controlled environment ,in real life at ISO 100 if not told there is much less difference but I’ve used both and D700’s IQ is better than D7000’s which according to DXO beats D3x in Landscape :) DX is a non standard format ,it started in digital only for cutting costs ,otherwise since the full frame cameras came they have been always on top :) D3s is still the king of high ISO and is the only camera where Nikon has very proudly shown ultra high ISO samples :http://imaging.nikon.com

Interesting point Mark, and should be asked to DXO guys ,they sometimes reply in comments. I consider DXO results seriously only as some very top level PGers do back them and their results are usually same or near to what they announce. Especially at ISO level readings they are pretty accurate. D700 and D7000 may have same score but D700’s ISO is much greater than D7000’s.

Honestly no ,and I’ve told this people before but if you compare D1 with D40 the results look better from D40 as D1 was the first practical DSLR but it’s ISO at 200 had grainy pictures, though both had the same size sensor. At high ISO ,however if you compare pictures of D700 and D7000 in 12 MP size then D7000 though not exceeding in IQ over D700 but gets a bit better.

I was sorting family shots on a USB stick for printing mostly in 4×6 size and some in 8×12 size ,the pictures were from my old Sony Ericsson K750 2 MP Phone cam and first tiny Fuji PnS 2 MP to D800 in same size 1200 pixels at longer end and I forgot about one picture that from which camera it was and found out that it was from the tiny Fuji 2MP :) and I was pretty certain that it’s a D5000 shot .. LOL :)

Nasim said there’s a big difference between FX and DX IQ. When I saw the DXO sensor datas, I thought “hmmm, maybe together/ in combination with the FX lenses”. But now, must people, like you, say apart from this 1 F-stopp better ISO there’s no big IQ difference. Since I shoot most pictures when traveling in daylight or inside with flash, I better stay with DX.

24MP vs 16 MP makes difference in buffer capacity but the other crop in crop (4800 x 3200 is very good size ) feature equalize that for my needs :) and the whole frame will be filled with AF points :) What do you think Nasim? D600 or D7100 as a second body after D800 only for action ?

Adnan, yes, absolutely – you get pretty much the whole frame filled with AF points, similar to what the D300/D300s have. If you already own a D800 and you need a second body for action, then the D7100 is probably a better choice because of a superior AF system. At the same time, it depends on what type of action. For low-light shots, the D600 is still going to beat the D7100 in noise levels…

I’m not using D7000 for low light anymore ,for that D800 is pretty good ,but my need was longer reach and after getting heavily disappointed in 800mm’s price , this new feature of 1.3x crop in DX is very exciting as the picture quality will be same which I suppose of will be like D5200’s and at ISO 1600 it is pretty good and I’m down sampling mostly my high ISO shots to 2 – 3 MP anyway :)

I think you meant to say the D7100 has a better a better AF system than the D600 rather than the D800. From what I understand the AF system in the D800 and D7100 are pretty much the same. The D600 has a similar AF system to the D7000.

Sorry I had just read Nasim’s post and thought he recommending the D7100 over the D800 due to a superior AF in the D7100 but if I had read the previous post I would have realized the conversation was about the D600 vs the D7100. My goof for taking it out of context.

Dear Nasim, I” m an italian photographer and I need your help, I use my D300 from 4 years, tne 2nd body is D200, now I’m just thinking to replace my good Gear after 100.000 ~ ~ shots: travel and trip 70%, street photo 20%, portraits 10%:. Shots every year 15-20.000. My lenses: nikkor 12/24 , nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR II with 1.4 teleconv., tamron 24-70 2,8 new, nikkorr 50 1.8 and others not so good… I like vivid and raw- jpeg and I have a great doubt : DX from D300 to D7100 or FX ?? I prefer , if I can, get my photos almost ready to use ( sometimes many different shots of a goog subject…if possible ) because of my problems with my back staying too much sit in front of my Pc using Photoshop… DEAR NASIM, Coming now back from Burma with some good images I’m very in doubt about my next Nikon, D800 – very expensive -, D600 or – after your impressions – D7100 … Last, I don’t print many pictures, I often use my photos for slideshows ( Proshow Producer ) – I like a lot… – and finally post on Facebook or my site or other sites like Flickr… No need to enlarge for print, now I create Blue ray dvd for watching at my Hd tv…. Simple but difficult to choose my best way for next years … :)

Claudio, looks like you are an advanced photographer and you know what you are doing. Switch to FX and get the D600, you won’t regret it for a minute. It is a huge step up in image quality from DX with phenomenal dynamic range. Check out my Nikon D600 review for my thoughts, image samples, etc.

DEAR NASIM, thanks for your sure and fast reply about D 7100 and D600; I too am a D600 fan, only the last problems about dust and other on its sensor sound not good, but I hope Nikon is working to remove this awful DUST AND OIL SPOTS ON THE SENSOR… Do you suggest to wait before order D600 ??

Dear Nasim, I am also struggling between DX and FX in terms of image quality.

You said its a huge step. The datas from DXO do not point out a big difference. According to DXO (link from above, last section of the site) difference between D600 and (the old) D7000 is *only* 0.3 EV in dynamic range and in color depth 1.7 bit. Also other examples, e.g. between D600 and D3200, difference in dynamic range is *only* 1.0 EV and in color depth 1.0 bit. Both times, at least on the paper, tiny differences.

Are these differences really a huge step or – for me this would be allready enough to go for D600 – at least *CLEARLY VISIBLE* for ordinary persons when looking at two pictures of the same scene, one made with D600 the other made with D7000/D3200?

In terms of sensor image quality there seems to be no big difference nowaddays, but …. Is it possible that your mentioned “huge step between DX and FX” comes in combination with the lenses? That together with the lens there is a big difference between DX and FX?

I’m really struggling to understand that.

I want to be sure, that when I buy a bigger and more expensive camera like D600, that I will really see in pictures a substantial image quality difference. Doubtless a D600 has many more features, but thats not what I’m (for now) mainly looking for.

I would really like to go up a full step from my D5000 but I dont know if I could do without the articulating viewfinder. Is this something that is considered a gimmick and advanced shooters would not want?

Phil, I look at an articulating viewfinder as a “nice to have”. If it was a mirrorless camera, then it would be much more useful, but on a DSLR, you need to get into tripod/video mode to really take advantage of that screen. For photography, that screen is overrated in my subjective opinion :)

I find it very useful for shooting things with the camera over my head and ,when shooting things low to the ground, it’s a lot better on my aging knees that to have to kneel. So, you’re right, Nasim, it’s personal. But don’t they have effects like Sepia on the 7100 and higher-end cameras? Seems to me these are even more useless gimmicks that serious users would shun.

Just chime in, it’s not a gimmick per se because it can definitely come in handy. I think the issue most shooters have with the articulating screen is that focusing is so much slower compared to using the actual viewfinder.

Nice comparison. Can you please clarify on what AF detection f8 means? Does it stop auto focusing beyond f8 or it will auto focus but less satisfactory? Appreciate your valuable work as always. Best, Prabhakar

Sorry, one more clarification, but all my nikon lenses auto focus even beyond f10 on d700 (without TC) and D700 has auto focus detection rated as f5.6. So, how this is experience is different from the auto focus detection specification? Thanks in advance.

No, that’s not it. With the D7000, you can autofocus with any lens that has a maximum aperture of f5.6 or less, including say an f2.8 lens with a 2x teleconverter. Within those constraints, you still have autofocus whatever the aperture the camera is set to because the autofocus system is operating at wide open aperture.

With the D7100, you can autofocus with slower lenses, say f4 plus 2xTC, where the D7000 will not autofocus, or if it does, only very slowly with a static subject.

I think what it mean is *almost* at any f number, your camera will still be able to focus.

Now however saying camera will be able to do AF detection up to F5.6 or F8 means a little different. Any lens has a maximum aperture value at any focal length. If it’s a constant maximum aperture, that value will stay the same that way (for example 24-120mm F4, then F4 always has a maximum aperture of F4 at all focal lengths from 24 to 120mm). If the lens has variable maximum aperture, then the maximum aperture will change (usually gets smaller) as you zoom in (longer focal lengths). For example 18-55mm F3.5-4.5 means that at 18mm, the max aperture is F3.5 and at 55mm the max aperture is f4.5. Similarly 70-300mm F4.5 – 5.6 meaning at 300mm, the maximum possible aperture is F5.6.

You can of course set your aperture at, say, F10 and your camera will still be able to AF, but it requires the maximum aperture to be at F5.6 to do any focusing at all. That is, when you press the shutter button half way, the aperture of the lens is still wide open at the max possible aperture to let all the possible light in to help with the focus. When you actually press the shutter button all the way down to take the picture, the camera will tell the lens to close the aperture down to the F10 value you set.

Many camera of previous generations cannot focus “beyond F5.6” meaning if you started out with a lens that has maximum possible aperture smaller than F5.6, the AF sensor will not receive enough light to detect focus. This is the case for many birders with F4 lenses such as 200-400F4, 500F4 or 600F4. The only option to add a tele-converter for them is 1.4x, because now the max aperture will be F5.6. Adding TC 1.7x makes max aperture F7.1, and adding TC2.0x makes max aperture F8, which won’t help them with AF. Now with the new bodies that can focus up to F8, they can use all three of the TCs.

Your D700 will do just fine regarding AF, as long as you don’t hook a TC 1.7x or 2.0x to any F4 lenses. :).

f/8 of MAXIMUM lens aperture. If you have a f/2.8 lens and close at f/11 the camera will focus anyway at f/2.8. If the lens has a maximum aperture of f/11 it won’t focus. “I have never seen lenses with a maximum aperture of f/11” you might think. That is why Nasim refers TO lingua lenses with teleconverters. Take a 400mm f/5.6 with a 1.4 TC. Int Will not autofocus on the D7000.

Francisco, unfortunately, there are a number of sites like dpreview that get to touch new cameras first. I requested a camera from Nikon once and the wait time after everyone was done was longer than what I could get from B&H. So like Adnan said, I will have it in my hands as soon as it is available, around March 30th.

No ,it’s not misleading ,the sensor is already DX so it has yet another 1.3x crop factor for more reach. Nikon states ” The D7100 features two image areas for still images – DX format (23.5 x 15.6 mm) and 1.3x crop of DX (18.8 x 12.5 mm)” and ” In DX format, the angle of view becomes equivalent to that of a lens with approx. 1.5 times longer focal length*1. In the newly employed 1.3x crop of DX mode, the angle of view becomes equivalent to that of a lens with approx. 1.3 times longer focal length*1 than in DX format. As a result, the image area becomes equivalent to that of a lens with about double the focal length*1. With this camera, you can get closer to distant subjects even though it employs a relatively lightweight, compact lens system. In the 1.3x crop of DX mode, the 51 focus points cover nearly the entire frame, attaining extremely high capturing power even when shooting moving subjects. The 1.3x crop of DX achieves an image size of approx. 15.4 megapixels, a sufficiently high pixel count for general use, which delivers high-resolution images.”

this ‘sneaky’ introduction of a crop mode on a DX camera (for the first time?) is quite interesting.

Nearly all of my photography uses significant magnification and I have lately adopted the CX sensor option

This gives me x2.7 as apossed to the x1.5 I have on my D300s.

Consequently I hardly use my D300s as it does not have the reach I require (above other atributes!)

Now with a D7100 and a V2 I have the following options:

14 Mp with x2.7 (V2)

15 Mp with x2.0 (D7100 in ‘crop mode’)

24 Mp with x1.5 (D7100 in DX mode)

This is a significant change for me and will definately lead me to purchase this camera! I love my V2 as it stays with me all the time – always available …. but now for ‘photographic outings’ (when I can accept the weight and size penalty) I have another choice opening up with the x2.0 on the D71000.

You know, despite all of our criticisms, those guys at Nikon are relly quite smart and they do seem to have mapped out a road map with a ladder from CX to FX. FX is a rung too far for me . . . . but for others?

How sure are you regarding the small buffer? The Nikon web site clearly states the D7100 can shoot 100 frames continuous. If you are right that the D7000 can out last the D7100, I will cancel my pre-order as the small buffer of the D7000 is what I was trying to get away from in the first place.

Thanks for the link to the buffer data for the D7100. I can not find the same data for the D7000 to compare. It seems there is still missing info on how fast the two cameras can dump the buffer to the card (throughput). Obviously the faster the data can be written out the longer it would take for the buffer to fill. Or, expressed differently how long the camera would have to wait until it could send the next frame to the buffer. It seems there should be a standard test for throughput. For example, if the shutter is held down for exactly 30 seconds, how many frames can the camera capture. Somehow, I suspect the D7100 has better throughput than the D7000 — otherwise why did I wait two years?

I just did this for 10 seconds on my D7000 set to maximum quality (RAW .NEF). I got 21 frames captured or 2.1 frames per second net. Hopefully, someone will get their hands on a D7100 to compare how many TOTAL frames the camera can capture in 10 seconds. Doing the same procedure in JPEG (Fine) the camera captured 29 frames when holding the shutter down for exactly 10 seconds. I am using a San Disk Extreme Pro SD card rated at 95 MB/s. Note the buffer in each case continued to send files to the card for several seconds after the shutter was released but I think 10 continuous seconds is enough for my application of photographing runners as they approach the finish line in 10k or similar events.

Well, since it is a comparison, it is only critical both the D7100 and D7000 are shooting the same values. For the two rates above, I was using 14-bit uncompressed on my D7000. Upon further reflection, it seems a better test is to simply depress the shutter and hold it until the camera “stutters.” That is, pauses until the buffer has room for one more frame. I think this is the procedure used by Nikon and my D7100 results were 32 frames JPEG Fine and 10 RAW (14bit uncompressed). It seems the long wait for the D7100 is a bitter disappointment in this area — not only is it not an improvement it is actually retrograde! Even if I were to upgrade to the D7100, I would still have to ration my frame rate as I already have to do.

I HAVE AN OLD TAMRON 18 – 270 mm VC Lens. I attached it to my Nikon D60, I want to upgrade into much newer camera even if I am not technically knowledgeable, can my Tamron lens be used or attached to Nikon D7100. By the way, thank you for giving time and effort to share your knowledge on photography. Wishing you the best of everything. Thanks.

It’s the same with the D800. The Japanese Government specified changes to batteries so the battery grip is specifically designed to take D4 batteries but not D3s batteries. The only difference is that the contacts are on the wrong side.

if you look at the nikon site and the D7100 web page, you will find that MB-D15 is listed as the NEW Battery Grip for D7100, and if Nikon list it as it is, then the old MB-D11 for the D7000 is only for the D7000 and can not be used for the D71000.

Since the D7100 is the first Nikon that does NOT have a low pass filter, does that suggest to you that there might be a replacement for the D800e in the future with a similar no low pass filter sensor? If so, Nikon could probably bump the resolution yet more and iron out some of the issues that have affected the D800/D800e.

Robert , it is the second Nikon camera with no AA filter ,D800 E is the first and Leica M9 was the first in digital and Fuji X Pro 1 also does not have AA filter :) Yes ,in future more models with no AA filter or low pass filter can come for sure :) Regarding resolution ,I will not be surprised if the D900 or whatever the D800’s upgrade comes up with 42 to 48 MP :)

Technically the 800E has an AA filter and then a second filter that “cancels out” the first, which always seemed to me to be a strange way to achieve having no AA filter. So I always wondered if the cancelation was perfect.

Both the D800 and the D800E had well-documented and much discussed issues with their autofocus system.

I like the idea of having medium format resolution in an FX body. I thought long about upgrading to the D800E before deciding that there was enough discussion about focusing issues that I would be better off waiting a generation.

Robert , Maybe you are right , Nikon states it as “New” , I suspect this “new” is for DX or an advancement to the previous model D7000. Though it is highly likely that same as D800E it physically is there but in low power and allowing vertical direction on both low power filters between the IR filter. Otherwise it will be troublesome to new shooters ,well until the real thing comes I can’t comment on this. But if it is physically not present then it’s awesome! :)

There are no more issues with D800’s AF anymore. Most of the complaints came from USA or people who pre ordered it , as they receive the first consignment as being a large market ,the AF issues were gone with the second batch and not all were bad in first shipment too. That’s why the refurbished (corrected) D800’s are available which were supposedly returned by the first owner. I wanted the E version but after waiting for 3 months I gave up and bought the non E version ,according to my dealer there were more orders from videographers than photographers for the E version :) , there are no issues with my D800.

Yeah! Me! LOL But, now that all the caveats on the “100 frames continuous shooting” claim are coming to light, I am seriously considering cancelling. I already find the throughput frame rate on the D7000 to be too small for my application (10k finish line photos of each runner) so you can imagine how aghast I was to learn from Nasim that the D7100 is even SLOWER! Gosh — and this is supposed to be an upgrade?

dr dani , it’s up to your requirements and budget that you need a motorized high end model or you need one of the best prime and macro lens first , the lens can AF on both bodies but if macro photography is your first priority then no need to get the camera , D5100 is a very good camera it has the same sensor as the D7000 and 105 micro will produce great sharp images :) If you can sell D5100 and have the budget then 105 + D7100 will be even greater :) ,you can get 210mm angle of view in about 16MP with the D7100’s double crop factor , which will be very helpful in closeup photography :) cheers!

no af-on button no full aperture control while recording videos they should at least put that in !!!!! whats the fps difference between this camera and d300s?

Also id like if somebody help me on the subject , It will sound like a dumb question but if I shoot in the new 1.3 crop mode with the new d7100, does that means that ill have a smaller maximum size print that if id shoot in the original dx mode . If so why that d be an advantage unless you are 100% sure you will never ever going to make a large print of your picture. When I take a picture id like to take it at full resolution so in any case I ever print it id like to be able to have the biggest print I can make out of my pictures ?? does that make any sense … can sombedy light me on that?

Not much care about the AF on button but the stinking red video button is there to confuse where +/- used to be ;) FPS will be slower due to massive 24 MP of D7100 vs half 12 MP of old D300s ,AF ability and metering are way high in D7100. 1.3x crop is 15.4 MP , you can print 6ft image from a 6 MP file

The biggest print on a 24MP file will be larger than a billboard size ;)

I have been with D5000, it served me great. I took great pictures with it. Nikkor 18-200 VR2 with 35mm/1.8 fills up my bag. Will D7100 be a good upgrade. I was enticed by D600 but it will be lot of dollors to move from DX to FX with FX lenses. I’m just thinking between D7100 vs D600.

D600 can shoot with DX lenses in 10MP size with the same image quality ,ubless you are ready to replace 18-200DX with 28-300 FX you can still use your DX lens on it :) There is no comparison with a full frame and a half frame camera ,D600 is best :) If budget is your problem then sure go for the latest D7100 :)

Hi I’m a beginner in photography but I’m studying a lot on my own. Watching lots of videos etc. I’m looking into buying the Nikon D7000 but now that I saw the D7100 I wonder if I should go with the D7100 instead of the D7000 because I will be taking wedding , sweet sixteen etc pictures. I will be doing this from now on.want to become a professional photographer and I know I can do it but as a beginner which of these cameras would you recommend I start with? D7000 or the D7100? I already have a Nikon D3000 and also have a D300 The D300 is not mine but I use it quit alot. Do which of the two would you recommend me? I also need it for video. Thank you

Well, one thing is that 1.3X crop mode gets you an extra photo per second in burst mode and still produce 4800 x 3200 images, which is only slightly smaller than those from a D7000. And the extra reach is probably helpful for sports photography.

Actually, they are both “DX” format which means they both have a 1.3 crop. The image sensor is the same 23.6 x 15.6 mm CMOS sensor on both bodies.

Sure you could shoot at 4494 x 3000 [M] with the 7100 and get about the same as 4,928 x 3,264 [L] with the 7000.

My point is; I just don’t see the value over the 7100. If you have a 7000, why run out and buy a new body when there is no real value in upgrading to 7100? Spend the money on some good fast prime glass instead!

In comparison, it will be interesting to see what Canon does with the 7D MKII. Hope it has some “real” value over the 7D!

No, I don’t think you’re understanding what this 1.3 crop mode is. Yes, they are both DX sensors (and both do have a 1.5X crop factor versus FX). But the D7100 adds an *additional* crop mode that uses only part of its DX sensor (the middle 4800 x 3200 pixels). It crops the normal DX format by an additional 1.3X on top of the 1.5. When set to this mode, the D7100 has a roughly 2X crop versus FX (to be precise, 1.95X). This results in a couple of things: the smaller image size enables 7 fps burst rate; the additional crop gets you a bit more effective “reach” out of you lenses; and the 51 focus points are spread over almost the entire viewing area. All of these things would be useful for sports photography IMO.

Now, whether this is worth spending the dough to upgrade your D7000 — that’s another story. I’m a D7000 and I have no intention of upgrading. But there are pretty clear advantages and and you wrote, “As a sports shooter, help me understand why the 7100 is a better body than 7000.” So I did.

“… The D7100 is also equipped with a new crop image area, 1.3x DX crop, which increases the angle of view by approximately 1.3x that of the standard DX-format angle of view. This effectively increases lens focal length to an equivalent angle of view of approximately 2x, making distant subjects larger. In addition, the 51 focus points cover the entire image area when 1.3x DX crop is enabled for quick and certain acquisition of subjects moving randomly through the frame with high-speed continuous shooting at approximately 7 fps (when 1.3x DX crop is enabled; up to 6 fps when standard DX format is enabled. Both maximum frame rates possible only when image quality is set to JPEG/12-bit NEF (RAW).”

Okay, for those of us who have a D3100 or D 3200. The price of the D 5200 and D 7000 is now the same. The main advantage that I see with the D 5200 is higher resolution and an articulating back. Once again Nikon disappoints. They should have gotten the hint from the Canon 60 D, and the lesser Rebels. Or from Sony. For those of us who like to shoot macro at low angles, a right angle finder is a pain in the neck. How much nicer it would be to have a tilting back. With the use of a Hood Loop I have a lot better tool than using the right angle finder. I know the D 7000 is a better camera in most regards. But I’ll bet that a lot of people who say a revolving back is just a nice addition, would find themselves using it a lot more than they ever thought.

Michael, LOL, you will soon be showing up in my dreams :) In all seriousness, I have the D3200 now and I am working on a comparison with the D5200. I am hoping to publish the D3200 review first, before I publish the D5200 review, so I sincerely ask you to be a little more patient with me ;)

I agree with Rene. I think Nikon is just trying to push a numbers game here for sales. Having owned multiple cameras D40, D90, D7000, D700, D3200 I find that using a single focus point prevents me from having to keep refocusing as the camera so often chooses incorrectly. If anyone’s looking to improve from the D7000 I’d think the better step would be to find a used but well-maintained D700 and go full frame. What camera do I take when I’m not getting paid to shoot? The D3200. It’s lightweight, compact, and it’s sensor handles low light situations well considering it’s small size, but that said, it’s still no D700. Nor does it weigh nearly as much which is good when you’re carrying your camera and your kids’ stuff.

The 1.3x crop doesn’t give any more reach (it’s using the same pixels). It’s pre-cropping the image. Only advantage I can see is faster writing of output so can buffer more pictures. (oh, and smaller files, if that’s an issue with storage/post processing, I suppose.)

Annan, thank you for the link. I read it carefully and still think the expression “6 FPS, 7 FPS in DX Mode” is wrong. It should read 6 FPS in DX mode, 7 in 1.3 crop of DX. The DX format is 23.5 x 15.6 mm and 1.3x crop of DX is 18.8 x 12.5 mm. Take the D800 specifications: 4 fps in FX and 5 in DX crop mode;this is clear. And I agree with AMusing in that in terms of reach it does not give any advantage: it is the same as cropping in post production. There are advantages in terms of AD coverage an minimal in terms of speed.

You are welcome :) On spec page of D7100 it is also clear with file sizes ,image numbers (buffers) DX is already a 1.5x cropped non standard sensor size ,the 1.3x crop is from a crop of 1.5x size ,hence it shows nearly double the angle of view as compared to FX focal range and the image quality will be the same.This has nothing to do with the physical size of DX sensor, it’s a crop in crop image or double crop 2x if stated simply.

Regarding fps ,24MP file is large and camera will be slow , while at 15.4 MP 1.3x crop it will be smaller file size hence writing more quickly and leaving more space for buffer, 15.4 MP is very near to D7000’s full size picture and will pick the best part from center creating a wide range of smaller aperture use as it has no AA filter a subtle punch of sharpness will be added by hardware from mediocre lenses. However high ISO results will remain same on DX.

It’s just like the 1.2x crop size in new FX cameras .

I wish D800 had a 4x crop factor size this means a 100mm lens would show a 400mm AoV cropped image with D800’s picture quality with still a very large file.

“And I agree with AMusing in that in terms of reach it does not give any advantage: it is the same as cropping in post production.”

LOL you can agree with AMusingFool but Nikon might disagree with you :) It’s about the same thing but I prefer a precise cropped shot from the camera ,rather than doing my own calculations , PS might have this ability but I use Lightroom 90% with DXO only for slight tweaking.I also shoot JPGs with customized settings as it all ends up in JPG anyway ,only shoot RAW for landscape n wildlife or low light shots.

A DX crop can give you additional reach, if the sensor has higher pixel density than the FX camera to which you’re comparing.

Cropping on the same sensor will always have the same pixel density, so there’s no additional reach. It might have a narrower field of view (ok, it will), which might simulate a longer-length lens, but it doesn’t give you any more detail. Maybe it’s just semantics, but reach, to me, implies detail.

You seem to be implying that using that 1.3x crop is the same as using a lens 1.3x as long. The field of view might be the same, but the similarities end there (unless there is a very large difference in lens quality, I suppose).

I have a D7000 & D300s and now ready for an upgrade, a D600 vs D7100? D7100 specs looks like the combo of my 2 current camera, I think I would take a step into the full frame region as a step up for me as I do weddings, the D7100 seems more like an action, wildlife camera more resting on the D300s successor. Your thoughts would be much appreciated.

Despite sharing the same resolution as the Nikon D5200, which was announced at the end of 2012, Nikon says that the 24.1 million pixel sensor is a new design for the D7100. It’s a DX format sensor, which is Nikon’s term for its APS-C sensors, and means that it has a crop factor of 1.5x, sitting below the full-frame options such as the D600 and D800 in the lineup.

Phil , it’s all about how Nikon sees it or if they care to get info from the retailers about buyer’s views or search different forums for user views. D400 is not impossible a 16-18 MP new sensor with 8 FPS at $1800 body only can fit in current lineup ,D600 is slower for action and D4 is full frame beside being more tough and some extra high features. So, won’t much be a threat to D4 :) I’m sure there are many potential buyers waiting for a tough DX action body with larger buffer :)

So I currently own a Nikon D70s and am looking for an upgrade (still in DX). I shoot many concerts so as you can expect, I want something with a bigger and better ISO range; would you recommend pre-ordering the D7100 or buying a D7000 now and wait until the bugs/problems that usually come with a new product to be fixed?

For low light PG a full frame camera like D600 is best as of today ,you can use your DX lenses on it at 10MP. otherwise the D7100 will loose details at ISO 3200 and will need a lot of PP.Otherwise shoot JPGs with camera control noise cleaning which also results in lame photos. Up to ISO 1600 IQ is OK on DX, depends on how much light is on stage :)

I really enjoy reading your website as it provides very clear and good explained information valuable to many shooters, so thanks for that!

With the coming of the D7100 I would like to share what I think of it as a D7000 user:

Just love my D7000. I feel it is a very capable camera. I have shot weddings with it, did some product and travel photography. It all served me very well. The field I feel that needs/needed to be improved for example is high ISO’s. During daylight it can still produce quite acceptable clean images on ISO 3200 to 6400 (and I am picky about this). But once it gets dark, I rather not take my ISO higher than 1600. I have managed a couple of shots where the ISO 3200 was acceptable, though, it was minimal. For me basically enough reason to move into FX. The AF could be improved as well.

For anyone thinking to upgrade to a D7000, I would suggest to wait and see what the D7100 has to offer over the D7000. Will there be a significant improvement in high ISO’s, will the AF be greatly improved, and will the non-AA filter prove to set nice crisp images?

Hi Ozmanguday After reading your post, concerning noise at 3200 iso, I have a question for you. Have you tried postprocessing your RAW files (much better than jpg files) in adobe LR4 with the latest camera RAW installed, or using Topaz Denoise 5 plugin ? if you answered yes, its is probably at night time that the shadows areas are way underexposed and if you try to bring them back they are buried in the electronic noise of the D7000. The answer to this is overexposing to reveal the details in the shadows with the consequence of loosing some of your highlights or choosing a camera format with less density pixels such as an FX camera or a lower megapixels camera that are better to capture low light.

Hi Ozmanguday Happy to see it helps, by overexposing one stop you are bringing your iso to 3200 instead of 6400. I would strongly recommand you go to Topazlabs.com and try their Denoise 5 plugins. They have a ton of videos on youtube how to use all of their plugins. You can even attend free webinars and even have a chance to win the plugin their having the webinar for. I know now that I would not live without them. regards Luc

Hi everybody. I come from many years of experience with SLR 35 mm and a period with a bridge camera. Now I’m going to move to DX. I think that D7100 release will presumably lower the price of D7000. I wonder if will be better spend less for 7000 or more for 7100…

Thanks for your answers. In fact, budget is THE issue and for the full-frame I’ll have to wait a little longer :( In Italy I found D7000 + 18/105 kit new at about 900 euro (at the moment, D600 body starts at 1600 euro). I don’t know what will be the price but maybe D7100 will be offered at least 200-300 euro more, while the D7000 will remain the same or – I hope – will further decrease. I wonder if wait and pay 200-300 euro more for D7100 or take D7000 and keep aside my money for the full-frame

It reminds me of a D7k question I had that I don’t think I ever saw an answer for… When I moved to my D7k from the D80 a year and 1/2 ago, I’d posted a question on why my D80 pics always looked “richer” ( and still do, as my wife now uses it) than my D7000 shots… They often look more “washed out” (especially with flash (on both cameras)) shots, but under other conditions too.

Has anyone else seen this (auto settings)? And is there a simple way to get the settings the “same” in both cameras?

Dying for an FX, but the current D80 user (aka my wife) doesn’t want another cascaded camara :-) and its not worth selling the D7k (similar logic has me still in possession of 2 still pristine F2s, in case anyone desperately needs those). :-)

I don’t know why your D7000 pictures look more washed out may be your D80 is shooting for you in scene modes or D7000’s firmware is corrupted. My D7000 looks OK to me ,here in this set are some direct from camera without retouching shots too ,only down sized at 2 MP to 4 MP:http:[email protected]/sets/72157631959983493/

Your Firmware in Menu/Wrench-Firmware version should show : A 1.02 B 1.03 L 1.006

Good article! I have to agree with it. As a DX shooter with a lot of DX glass it costs a lot more in lenses to go FX vs the cost of the camera. If I want to have the same “reach” as I have on my DX today, it would cost me thousands of dollars and very big heavy lenses.

I have read several places that FX is better for landscape shooting. What do you guys think? I disagree with this. For my need I can get plenty wide enugh shot with 12-24mm. High ISO is not really a concern as I use a tripod 90% of the time. When I shoot landscapes I am often in very remote places walking over long distances in tough terrain, and the FX camera + lenses are a lot larger and heavier.

If I also want to shoot wildlife when I am out shooting landscapes, reach is key. Using a 300mm F4 on DX gives a lot of reach, especially with the 1.4x TC. To get the same focal length on FX I need to purchase a 400mm lens (heavy and expensive), and not an option for me as a hobby photographer.

Hi John I agree with you. I maybe wrong but I think If we are willing to wait a few years we will get the same quality on DX format that we see on FX today. Surely FX will have evolved to be even better. I will end by making a comparison, its not because there are Ferraris that we don’t love less exotic cars. I think the same apply to cameras. The largest sensors will always have an edge in low-light situations , this is a law of physics but they come with a price and bulkiness on lenses. If you can’t wait and have the money to spend , go and buy them its your choice.

Nasim, Great work put up all over your site! I need your suggestion about setting up new system on Nikon. I had Canon system before (sold it). I am a serious hobbyist – more into portraits/fashion portfolios and landscapes/architecture. I am aiming to make it into professional photography. I have realized I have two options- 1. to biuld DX system- Nikon D7000 85mm 1.8G 35mm 1.8G Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 Estimated cost USD $2100

My original budget is $2000, so DX system fits well, but I know I will upgrade to FX in 3 years from now(I hope successor to D600 will be more reliable and cheaper). So want to save the cost of transition from DX to FX at that time. Another fix is the quality issues with D600. I dont want to end up paying more for a body with sensor dust issues or any other QA issues (specially since I am going for refurb). What would be the best move in your thoughts?

Rick , Systems cannot be build overnight in limited budget ,however if you have plans to go full frame and Pro level then better to start from FX. A used D700 and one 50mm can be a good start. I’ll highly recommend a refurbished D600 , these cameras are brand new only thing is that whatever flaws they had are now completely gone as serviced and checked by Nikon service. But if you insist on DX then skip the Tokina even though it’s a great ultra wide zoom and better than 10-24 DX ,go for the new coming FX 18-35 as for other lenses ,the 35 1.8 G is a superb DX lens but try to get FX glass and slowly build your system. If you are into landscapes and street PGy , a 28 1.8 G with D600 can also be a considerable pair.

Adnan, thank you for patiently reading my post and giving practical suggestion. I will start with Refurb D600, 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8. I now strongly believe that this will serve me better in long term- giving great pictures every time and saving money as well. Thanks again!

Smaller pixel size for 24MP to fit in a DX crop sensor for better IQ and noise reduction. DR will be automatically better as the less noise in darks and shadows will help generate more details even with a bit of noise and will help in high ISOs like 3200 and above. DR in digital is highly related to ISO. That is why large full frame pictures show better results as there is more room and even if pixel size is a bit large results differ in better IQ at high ISOs

not upgrading fom my d7000—- the buffer is a major blow……my D7000 is shoots more..and even now i wish it would shoot more than 10 frames in a single burst in while i shoot action….i’d take your recommendation and wait for the next one…

I don’t know what happens with Nikon. After waiting for years we never had a real D700 update, and now D7000 owners are disapointed too. I hope at least the camera would not have serious issues, like the D800 and D700.

Basically I would like to have a body with a sensor with more resolution, dynamic range and technology, so that I don’t loose the D700 low light capabilities and at the same time I win definition. It seems that the D600 sensor would be a good one, because I could downsize the low light photos to keep or even improve the noise performance of the D700 (I would not do posters with the low light pics). Then it would be nice to at least keep the autofocus system of the D700, but because you asked for my dream upgrade, I would like to ask for a FX version of the new D7100 autofocus system (I need the autofocus dots covering a wider part of the sensor). Fundamentally that’s all what I want. Of course I would like to keep a weather proof body, a sync speed of 1/250, a decent shutter speed with a decent buffer, and buttoms that allowed me to control directly the most important camera functions. To add the U1 and U2 instant recall mode dial of the D7000 would be very nice too. As you can see, I’m not asking for someting extraordinary, but for features that are already present in the D700, D600 and D7100. I don’t want the D800 resolution or the D4 shutter speed. I want a camera made with common sense. Nikon, hear me !! I want a real D700 update !! Greetings.

Thanks and not bad ,I like it :) D700 upgrade is not happening my friend ,D800 is direct D700’s upgrade but if only Nikon decides or just to stir up the market or If I own it then might release a 24MP tough built D750 with U1 ,2 and 3 settings with no green auto :) D600 is the first cheapest FX DSLR and with inferior AF and other things it adds up to lesser price this way. A $1600 camera like F100 was same as buying a D800 today :).

Basically you want a mixed D600+D800 :) ,I’d like the U1 U2 U3 features on D800 too! :) (The 4 memory banks are useless ,one has to press 3 times in menu as camera ,picture,size and AF settings don’t change with one button ,but a thorough firmware update might fix it) On other hand U1 and U2 settings change all the menu in D7000. in one click which is very helpful.

D400 will certainly be coming as personally I see room for it and D7100 is not a D300s upgrade , if they only put 20 14 bit RAW buffer in D7100 very few people who are used to D300 or pro features might buy D400 with large buffer capacity. But 24MP files are huge and I think if they can’t go beyond 7fps then a 16 to 18 MP new sensor is needed. I just want a 8-10 MP FX camera with ISO 6400 as clean as ISO 100 :)

There is one interesting feature in D7100 ,one can shoot in pitch black in black n white ,but I have to see it to believe it though the feature is there :)

I understand that some of the D7000 owners are dissapointed with the D7100 buffer’s size, but for me the D7100 is an interesting camera. While I wait for a D600 update – with a decent autofocus system – perhaps I could go for the D7000 to use it with my 70-200 f/2.8 + the TC-17 E. I will have a lot of reach to shoot like a paparazzi. Also I can use it as a backup of my D700 with day light. I’m not interested in sports photography, so the buffer size is not such a big deal for me.

Same here ,as a second body D7100 is what I’m considering for 300 F4 +TC14 :) it will be around 800mm 5.6 + in the cropped 1.3x mode at 15.4 MP and one does not have to shoot like a machine gunner ,I shoot 3 to 4 shot bursts and after a sec. or 2 again 4 to 5 bursts. The card will be writing from buffer and if you spare some buffer memory for 2 sec. only it’s ready again and after 6 shot burst it will still be writing but one has to wait for a while like 8 to 10 sec. I mostly use this in low light at 1/15 to 1/30 and shoot 5 shot bursts ,usually the middle 2 are in perfect focus :) ,I’ve tried this on D700 + 16-35 VR combo.

I love my D 7000. I started out with the D 80, then D90, then the D 7000. Each one was a step up in image quality. Live view was the big step with the D 90. High ISO capability was big for me with the D 7000, besides being whether sealed in a higher frame rate. I like to shoot wildlife with a 500 mm and 6FPS is plenty fast. As I’ve said before the big disappointment for me was the lack of a pivoting back. Another disappointment that I haven’t mentioned yet is that I would have liked to see the ability to bracket up to five frames instead of three. It would also be nice if there was an infrared sensor on the back of the body also. Not just on the front. Other than a few of those shortcomings, it’s a fantastic camera. The D 7100 has no real appeal to me. The next step up would be to a full frame body. All my long lenses, and my two micro lenses are FX. So for the FX body I would probably go with the 24 – 85mm VR. And for the really wide angle work, believe it or not I would probably go with the Tokina 17- 35 f4 Pro.

D300 though older model but is more advance level camera and D7000 or D7100 are armature build quality but deliver high quality features as being newer models. D7100 is a much better camera if you don’t shoot bursts of 20 RAW shots for action :)

Yuh, D300 is too advance for me so I’m planning to buy my own so I can explore more on photography. Using my dad’s d300 is restricting me from ‘exploring’ (cause I might do something or break it or whatever).

should I go for the d7000 or the d7100? is d7000 outdated now? investing in the d7100 instead means the few bucks saved for the 50mm prime lens would now be gone and I will be left with just the kit lens. i am a student and it is a one time investment for me as of for now based on my parents money. i want a camera that would go on for atleast 3 years and later on won’t be termed Outdated.

i will be greatly thankful to you.

the D7000, D7100 or the D5200 ? preety confused though, as of for my budget limitations. learned photography on my dad’s D3000.

I presently shoot with a D7000 . Will I be envious of the D7100? No! Sure Nikon has added some features but what would you expect from a new replacement camera. I always keep a camera for at least 3 generations so that I get max use out of my tools. When I do move up it is a real advance. I do plan on purchasing new and better lenses which is better use of my $’s. I also will be only buying FX glass replacing my DX lenses so my next camera purchase will be FX for sure. As an amateur photographer I enjoy DX but see the advantages of FX and will likely buy the next generation of D600 when it comes out. At present the D600 is just to much like my D7000 to spend the money on it. Since I don!t make my living from my hobby my dollars count so this move up will be planned and deliberate. I know that I want better lenses before a better camera so that when I move to higher resolution I can actually get it. So often the limiting factor is the lens. Even on my D7000 better lenses will mean better and faster focusing and getting maximum resolution out of the D7000 sensor. My advice is to think before you purchase the latest and greatest. Each camera has a short shelf life at the top. Excellent lenses are current much longer and ensure better photos even .

I presently shoot with a D7000 . Will I be envious of the D7100? No! Sure Nikon has added some features but what would you expect from a new replacement camera. I always keep a camera for at least 3 generations so that I get max use out of my tools. When I do move up it is a real advance. I do plan on purchasing new and better lenses which is better use of my $’s. I also will be only buying FX glass replacing my DX lenses so my next camera purchase will be FX for sure. As an amateur photographer I enjoy DX but see the advantages of FX and will likely buy the next generation of D600 when it comes out. At present the D600 is just to much like my D7000 to spend the money on it. Since I don’t make my living from my hobby my dollars count so this move up will be planned and deliberate. I know that I want better lenses before a better camera so that when I move to higher resolution I can actually get it. So often the limiting factor is the lens. Even on my D7000 better lenses will mean better and faster focusing and getting maximum resolution out of the D7000 sensor. My advice is to think before you purchase the latest and greatest. Each camera has a short shelf life at the top. Excellent lenses are current much longer and ensure better photos even .

I think we should wait in judgement of the d7100 ..its pictures and quality etc. till it really comes out in late march. This way guys like nasim adnan and others can give us a good idea if they like the new camera. Sounds like a good idea?? Then we can judge and give opinions

Gary , I’m just a non serious hobbyist , I don’t think so that putting my name along with Nasim who is a full time Pro and from whom I’ve learned a lot is justifiable ,it will mislead others :) I just try to share or answer up to the best of my ability and knowledge as I started playing with my dad’s throw away medium format cameras when I was 12 :) ========== Looking at D5200’s exposure and pictures and the sample shot of D7100 of that woman’s night shot without flash on Nikon France Flickr link ,I think the IQ will be certainly better as the pixel size is smaller to fit 24 MP in DX , but yes ,until the camera starts to ship it’s useless to comment other than what is on paper.

Personally , I will buy it only for the lens , 300 F4 + TC14 and will use it in 15.4 MP crop of DX mode, which is going to give above 800mm AoV and I’ll be using it up to ISO 1000 , the main advantage for me is more or less 80% of AF area coverage in view finder which will increase hit ratio for more in focus shots than shooting 20 and getting 5 in focus :) ,besides it is the poor man’s way of getting the 800mm 5.6 :) ,1200 for body 1500 for lens and TC is much less than 18 K huge lens :)

I will keep the D7000 with 70-300 VR , it is the most common pair I use.

This is from the Nikon website For the vast majority of photographers who shoot a wide variety of subjects, shoot hand-held as well as with a tripod, use a selection of NIKKOR lenses and shoot at all aperture settings, the D800 and its 36.3MP using the OLPF will be the ideal choice.

From an article discussing moire in the nikonausa learning center

This DOES NOT sound good for the D7100. Are they in essence saying if you do general photography you should take the d7000 over the d7100 using the same rationale?

Sounds like Nikon is saying the NON Olpf should only be used in specific uses and there is NOT a significant increase in sharpness. Sounds like pr is trying to sugar coat something. Dang and I was excited by the d7100

Why take the filter out if there wasn’t a significant increase in sharpness? Doesn’t should like a smart idea by nikon

Gary, Moire can be excited in with cameras having the AA filter with super sharp primes like ,55mm 2.8 AI-s ,85 1.4 AF-D and G, 105 Micro ,200 F4 Micro and some Leica and Zeiss lenses too! I’ve seen moire on D7000 ,D3x and Canon 5D 3 and all of them have AA filter. It’s highly likely that even D600 is able to produce moire with sharp primes. One has to avoid sharpest apertures like F5.6 to F8 (F5.6 is the most sharpest aperture in 99% of lenses) First, not every shot will produce moire ,it highly depends on light conditions and subject. Secondly ,one can sometime even see it in VF or after taking the shot zoom in LCD to check. Then you can take the shot by either changing your angle or stopping down the lens at F13 to F16. Technically it makes sense that the results will be sharper. DXO has explained even better than Nikon that the AA filter physically does not exist ,I was thinking that it might be there like D800 E but in low power.

I think when they say use in specific uses it means the PG has to know what he is doing :)

For high resolution 24 MP and above in every new model coming from different companies it is the best way to compete in IQ by removing the filter.

And it still does in camera sensor cleaning ,it’s not like a “wiper” is going on while cleaning the sensor, it is slightly vibrated to dust off the fresh dust which came in while changing lenses. Otherwise a blower is good enough.

Though Nikon states D7100 is equal to build quality of D300s and D800 but one has to hold it in hands to see that.

Nikon has said that the D71000 has more water & dust resistant sealing than the D7000 more on par with the D300s and D800. I have looked at the photo Nikon Issued of the D7000 seals and also the photo of the D7100 seals and cannot for the life of me see more seals on the D7100. The seals are only different where the buttons and body have changed but both show seals on the button, levers and body plates. Both cameras are constructed the same using the same combination of magnesium and plastic. No change at all there. I have watched videos on You Tube of the D7000 (with a body cap on) being sprayed on by a hand held shower for quite some time or being left out in the rain. The camera did not appear to be worse for the experience in both tests. (I would not likely try the shower head test on my D7000 but it is interesting to see it work after) I have had my camera in the rain on several occasions and it did get wet with no problems. I know some may say that maybe the seals are improved but I look at the ass gasket on a Regular lens and a professional grade lens and an ass gasket appears to be an ass gasket. No difference.

If Nikon means more gaskets and seals because the camera is physically larger then I guess they have a point . I don’t see any difference from information they have released and if a camera can take the pressure from a shower head how much more weather sealing do we need. I am sure that the pressure of a shower head would show any problems. Does anyone know what Nikon means by new or improved weather sealing?

HI Les As an engineer it is known that seals have a tendancy to crack overtime. Maybe I say maybe Nikon will use better quality seals on the D7100 and their new cameras in the future , It would be interesting to know from Nikon how many cycles they can be pressed by the user on the different buttons the camera is designed with, and what is the expected life in years before they begin failing. By the way I don’t see any seals at the SD card door location, and neither at the battery door on the D7000.

HI dr Hani my 2 cents comment: 5 things that stop me right now from going to that technology:

1- The mirrorless is in fact a semi transparent pellicle that act as a fixed mirror and that is very delicate, and if dust adhere to it as it will I am sure, how will we be able to clean it. This technology is not new it was used in 1960 (see wikipedia)

2- Dust again, how can we clean the sensor, if this pellicle is stopping us to reach the low pass filter ?

3- My son owns a Sony A55, and I can’t get use to the EVF. Peoples complaining about ghosting.

4- 1/3 stop or 40% less light reaching the sensor, can be a problem trying to manually focus in low-light.

5- Not suitable yet for sport photography.

Now the good points about mirrorless cameras:

1- The only moving object is the shutter , no mirror motion, less vibration, less wear, the camera AF focusing should stay more accurate with time 2- technology has and will evolve. 3- should be cheaper to build (less moving parts). 4- reduce camera size.

Luke, I agree that there is no real seal on the door to the 2 SD cards and from photographs of the D7100 it is the same as the D7000. I agree that it would be to know if their is a life span to the seals. I think likely that most don’t keep a camera long enough to have the seals age enough to fail. With advances in DSLR’s most likely replace their cameras within 5 years or so.

I own a D7000 and I think that for the prices I see it is a steal. It does all you can ask for and produces great and wonderful pic’s. The file size on a D7100 will be larger for sure and already the files I get in RAW on the D7000 are big enough. Unless you are doing wall size photos I don’t think you will see any difference between these cameras and maybe not even then. If you get the D7000 the money you save can be put to better glass. Always a smarter move. You will not be disappointed with a D7000.

Hi Les I agree totally with your comments. May I add that I see in the near future instead of beeing printed wall pics displayed using HDTV OLED frame up to 60 inches like our HDTV. From what I know it takes only 2 megapixels to display an image in 1980X1280 pixels, so what is the point to go to extreme high megapixels cameras if you do not print for sizes over 13X19 inch, except if you want to crop heavily your pics ?

I was going after a second D7000 (my main body is a Nikon FX), but my dealer could not find any without a lot of dust particles (he tried 4 – I asked him to examine because of the problems with D600), and then the new D7100 was very interesting (perhaps they had solved the dust problem ?), but the only complaint I had about the D7000 was the slow buffer, and this here is …..even slower !!

Yes you can shoot in crop-mode, but then you loose some in the viewfinder, and as everybody knows the viewfinder in DX is not as fine and bright as in FX, so I do not want this even worse, and at the same time you loose the extra pixel for printing huge or for cropping,

I’m looking to get a new DSLR and lens for bird photography, to upgrade from the prosumer camera that I have been using. I was considering the D800 with the AFS 300mm f/4 IF-ED, with a TC. I was standing by because of the pricing of the D800 body, which is still slightly beyond my budget at the moment. But now, do you suppose I should go in for the D7100 with the the AFS 300mm f/4 IF-ED, with a TC instead? Will the D7100 work with this lens when using the 1.7x and 2.0c TCs? Please advise.

D7100 is a fantastic camera and 300F4 + TC14 E II works great giving sharp results at 420mm. In crop of DX mode at 15.4 MP it becomes around 850mm 5.6 AoV. You can read about TC performance article in article about TC performance.

Hi Adnan, thanks a ton for your quick response; very convincing indeed – I think I will go out and check out the D7100 tomorrow, and order the 300 f/4 and the TC as well. This combo fits my current budget rather comfortably, and will save up up-grading/scaling to better glass (maybe the 300 f/4 VRII if and when Nikon releases one, or the 300 f2.8) and a second body later.

I bought the Nikon 300mm f4 lens from Adorama about a month ago. It’s a great lens!! I have not yet got the 1.4TC to go with it, but will consider this as an option to get more reach!

As Adnan Khan points out with the 300mm + 1.4x TC + the extra crop factor on the D7100 you will get tremendous reach and flexibility at a very affordable price, compared to the bigger, heavier and much more expensive alternatives (nikon 400mm, 200-400mm, 500mm, 600mm etc.)

From what I have heard the D7100 performs great at high iso and very usable at 6400. With such high iso + the extra reach and a lot of cropping power with 24megapixels it should be a great camera and lens combination for wildlife and sports (except for the small buffer size).

Thanks John! Yes, sounds good. The smaller buffer is I guess an acceptable downside in relation to the savings vis-a-vis a D800 body! I’ll probably look at picking up a couple of SanDisk Extreme Pro® SDXC™ UHS-I 64 GB Cards to go – wonder if anyone has used these with the D7100 and has any ideas on performance.

have you read Nasim’s post of the 10th April ‘DX or FX for Sports or Wildlife’? If not , it is well worth a read.

The ‘extra crop on the D7100 is not equivalent to the DX crop native to the camera. The DX crop does indeed give an ‘apparent’ zoom effect at 1.5X using all 24 Mpx. However the ‘extra crop’ of x1.3 reduces the number of pixels to around 15 MPx. So it is exactly the same result as in the standard crop – just ‘precropped if you like – the remaining pixels have been thrown away.

The advantage, I beleive, is that in the x1.3 crop you are concentrating the image over all of the focusing points. Additionally the file size drops and frame rate climbs a bit.

So in essence you have the following results: – a 1.5 crop 24 MPx camera or – a 2.0 crop 15 MPx camera.

I have just bought a D7100 for wildlife work. I have been experimenting with a V2+FT1+70-200 f/4 with great success. However, when using the FT1 you loose continuous focusing mode – so this limits you for erratic movement such as birds in flight. Thus I now have available also:

– a 2.7 crop 15 MPx camera as well!

Hope to experiment with these options soon and will report back if I can conclude anything.

I can say, that after only a few days use I beleive the D7100 is the best DX camera I have tried to date (friends also have Canon and Pentax equivalents). My last DX (owned) was a D300s and the D7100 seems a worth successor in terms of all image and operational functions (perhaps less ‘solid’ – weights less – which for me is a great advantage). The picture quality with the 70-200 f/4 is nothing short of stunning at all focal lengths and accross the whole frame — also as Nasim reports in his review of this lens

Once again ‘Well done Nasim’ . Your two articles on the 70-200 f/4 and the DX/FX debate have informed my two recent purchases of the 70-200 and the D7100 – as usual you are ‘spot on’. Thankyou!

John and Sunder , Be careful of this company KSPGM ,it’s like ENRON :) Big hat no cattle. If he has something to share even experimental shots no body is judging him,nobody is a born shooter all have to learn ,how hard it is to get a free account on Flickr and share your experience? .First it was V1 body + FT adapter ,now he has got a D7100 :) ,Congrats! :) I have stop answering to ppl. who have nothing to share but like to talk a lot.

I never contradicted Nasim and he has never contradicted my understanding of “crop factor” in fact I explained in comments a while ago before this very much understanding with pictures article Nasim wrote.

and you can read some thoughts here about DX ,though this DX thing came in digital but once was tried in film too a long time ago and failed.Even though I personally do not like non standard formats but do shoot with DX and PnS cameras.

1 – Focal length will remain the same no matter what crop factor is. If you are shooting a 300mm FX lens on a full frame camera ,it is 300mm.

2- The word Crop factor came into being by developing smaller sensors from DX to tiny PnS and their focal length was attached to 35mm format as it is the least standard in PGy. Hence the camera manufacturers started using word EQUIVALENT beside it as to whatever their sensor size was so was the lens in size used producing image circle ,therefore they write e.g 500mm in 35mm EQUIVALENT ,NOT the actual 500mm. Meaning it will take a 500mm actual FX lens to go to that angle of view ,whatever their camera is zooming into.

3 – A 300mm FX lens used on a smaller 1.5x DX sensor will give 450mm Angle of View NOT the actual 450mm focal length. It means that a FX lens will have to be a real 450mm lens to get to that AoV. DX sensor is small so it gets the better part from the image circle ,which is usually sharp ,more in focus due to more AF point covered area in VF at long range , especially when shooting small subjects like birds or small animals. BUT only in some cases ,as it will produce greater depth at F13 to F16 in a landscape shot as compared to a full frame sensor or 35mm film. A FX camera will generate greater Shallow depth of field and will create more bokeh being a larger sensor. Now both have advantages and disadvantages too ,but overall a FX camera wins. Why? … first there is every kind of lens available for every kind of PGy in 35mm FX, while DX is a cheaper way to get that extra reach VIRTUALLY not physically.

4 – When ppl. say why bother with DX or shoot in DX mode in FX camera when you have the ability to crop yourself in software or even in camera. I agree and disagree . I agree with shots of portraits and landscapes where most of the frame is in focus and one can compose crop easily as he wishes. I disagree on cropping a FX image of a small bird where there is huge space left if not shot with actual 600mm and prefer to shoot with a DX camera or either in DX mode of a FX camera. First compose your picture that you do not have to crop it but if focal lenght is limiting you then yes do crop. The advantage of shooting birds or faraway wildlife in DX mode with 300 or 400mm zooms is that you get tight AoV with AF area mostly covered better than a FX AF area. if you shoot a 300mm lens on DX at F13 to F16 you will get more in focus shots even if you miss the eye focus.

5- Now this new thing which Nikon calls it “Crop of DX Mode” introduced in D7100 is very interesting. As the D7100 is already a 24MP cropped 1.5x camera ,Nikon has put a 15.4 MP 1.3x Crop of DX shooting mode in it and it is still larger than D300’s full size 12MP. It nearly doubles the crop factor hence creating a virtual double focal length. This is the cheapest way to get a virtual 800mm 5.6 lens in about 3K.And the 15.4 MP picture still gives you some space to crop. Plus when shooting in 1.3x crop of DX mode the VF is filled with 51 points and the hit ratio is improved nearly 100%. Writing 15.4 MP files with EXPEED 3 processor is faster using best high speed memory cards and the buffer complaints from “machine gunners” has no point when one is getting 95 to 100% hits compered to 50% or 60% hits ,it becomes equal and the image quality is better on D7100 with a larger file.The remaining pixels are not thrown away but it would be better to say they are not used as the camera is only shooting in 15.4 MP but giving the same image quality.

6- DO NOT WORRY ABOUT PIXEL PEEPING ,none of you including me is going to print a 6 feet image ,which actually can be printed from a 6MP file. If you have any doubts ,just go n consult with the ppl. who make BILLBOARDS and ask how much least file size is needed to make a 20 x 8 feet long board. You mostly drive by from a reasonable distance to see a sharp looking huge board but has anybody tried looking it from 2 feet away? This 300dpi or 240 dpi print myth is created by the sites which sell pictures using semi commercial printers and their size does not exceed 24×36 for wall hanger images,that is why they demand more larger and dense files. On internet you will see only in 72dpi.

And here are our dear friend William Jones calculations on 80-400mm zoom with D800FX and D7100 DX : Author: William Jones Follow the math, and the reach on this lens gets very interesting (remember, a lot of this is “apparent reach”).

On a D800 FX = 80 to 400 in 1:2 mode = 96 to 480 in DX mode = 120 to 600

Add the TC-14 to the lens on a D800 FX = 112 to 560 in 1:2 mode = 134.4 to 672 in DX mode = 168 to 840

Now switch to D7100 DX = 120 to 600 in 1:3 mode = 160 to 800

Add the TC-14 to the lens on a D7100 DX = 168 to 840 in 1:3 mode = 224 to 1,120 (now that is some reach!)

Just thought the math on this was interesting enough to share. Hey Nasim, try shooting this lens with a TC-14 on it, while attached to a D7100, & in 1:3 mode. Share a picture or two of the results.”

With D7100’s crop of DX mode according to his calculations one can get more than 1100mm AoV! :)

On how real Field of view works ,use the Nikon lens simulator and select FX body and FX lens to see real FoV and select DX body and FX lens for cropped AoV .

Beware on 2 t 1 deg. AoV one has to use a monopod at least even if you have VR ,it’s hard to compose at a very tight angle. However shooting birds in flight overhead you will be shooting handheld.

Hello Nasim, I am a hobbyist, having out grown my point n shoot cam in manual mode, I am considering a move into dslr. It will remain my only dslr for many years to come, so I’ve shortlisted d7000 n d7100 along with 60d. Need an advice from you on this situation which one should I go for.

Please welcome me to the nikon family very recent i have bought my nikon DSLR but one question i would like to ask hoping you guys help me. When clicks/captured snap then the image preview is not coming on back LCD automatically.

Unlike when i was shooting with canon soon image captured then its preview on back screen for few seconds.

I hope you’ve read the entire article before posting this question. Having said that, I would pay attention at 4 characteristics of the Nikon D7100 against the D7000 (which I own and use for wedding):

– Lack of AA filter: better definition than the D7000. I find this AA filter rather useless in 90% of the situations, and is something that sacrifies the quality of the image a lot.

– AF system: better for autofocusing, which is a constant concern in weddings.

– ISO performance: even with the aid of a (must-have) flash unit, I would rarely use more than ISO 1600 in low light situations with the D7000. Having seen the results here, I would probably tolerate the performance of D7100 at ISO 3200, which allows you to have brighter scenarios or use faster shutter speeds.

– More megapixels: this would probably sound better. OK, it is: better resolution. Especially when you are concerned about details or making significant crops over the final image. ¿Disadvantage? Well, you will need a powerful machine to manage the large resulting files.

Finally, there are 2 more that are not so important, but I found them very useful: – Bonus 1: Better screen with fast zooming. Ideal for fast checking if your just-taken picture is in focus and “trepidation-less”.

– Bonus 2: mode lock button. For avoiding accidental mode change that can cause a wasted picture in those important times.

Conclusion. D7100 is a general update of the D7000, so the D7100 is better in almost any aspect. The question is: Do you NEED to expend that extra money on the D7000? If that is not a concern, go for the D7100. If it is, the D7000 is an incredible camera that will make you comfortable with most photographic situations you face. I know it’ been a year already (now, there is a not so big update in the market, the D7200), but this may help some other people having its choice.

Hi there! Firstly, great website, found a lot of useful stuff on here the last couple of days! Secondly, I am a relatively new to photography and currently use a Nikon D3100, but am looking to upgrade. I use it for a range of stuff, a bit of sports here and there, shoot video interviews for a website and then general photography really, a bit of nature and a bit of photo-journalism. I was originally looking at the D7100, but I’m now wondering if the slightly older but cheaper D7000 would be good enough for my needs? I’m a student, so budget is an issue and the savings would be fantastic, but don’t want to get the D7000 if it wouldn’t be suited for my needs! Cheers :)

Hello! Liked your brief technical comparison of the D7000 & D7100. I have never used a DSLR before but I have a fair knowledge of photography, exposure settings, etc. and fairly confident of myself. I take good photographs and want to buy my first DX DSLR for professional use for taking pictures of landscapes, wildlife, birds, etc. I am looking for a 16mp to 24mp DSLR with weather sealing, that gives me sharp and uncompromising RAW & JPEG images in normal as well as low light , which is why I have shortlisted the Nikon D7100 after comparing the technical specifications with the D7000. Do you think the D7100 will be easy to handle for a first time DSLR user? If not, can you please suggest any other Nikon or Canon DX models that would suit me and are easier to handle and also offer uncompromising RAW and JPEG images? Thank you.

I would like to buy a Dslr. But i would like to get suggestions from you. Which cam is best for me D7000 or D7100. in my point of view there is no low pass filter in D7100. so thats why D7000 is best to get clear pics. Am i right or wrong? Brief me in detail

I’m a macro photography enthusiast, and I click pictures of reptiles, frogs and the likes. Naturally the beauty lies in their details, pigments etc. I currently own a D3200, and I have enough money to get a D7000. However, given the lower resolution AND the AA filter, do you think this is a bad choice for macro photography?

Would really appreciate your opinion. I’m conflicted, because as a student I have no fixed income, so it’s unlikely that I’ll be able to get the d7100 for a long time.

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.